Erection of single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 September 2026 by A Knight BA PG Dip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012511 5 Rother Crescent, Gossops Green, Crawley, RH11 8DF • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Muhammad Farooq against the decision of Crawley Borough Council. • The application Ref is CR/2026/0224/HPA. • The development proposed is erection of single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have used the description of development from the application form in the banner heading above. I note that on the decision notice the proposal was described as ‘Prior notification for the erection of a single-storey rear extension, which would extend beyond the rear wall of the original house by 5 metres and have a maximum height of 3.15 metres and an eaves height of 3 metres’. 3. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. 4. Where an application is made for a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g) to Part 1, paragraph A.4(3) provides that the local planning authority may refuse the application where it considers that the proposed development does not comply with the conditions, limitations or restrictions that are applicable to such permitted development. 5. Paragraph A.4(7) to Part 1 requires that where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, prior approval is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of adjoining premises. Appeal Decision 6012511 2 Reasons 7. The appeal site includes a mid-terrace dwelling in a residential area. It is neighboured to the northwest by 7 Rother Crescent (No7) and to the southeast by 3 Rother Crescent (No3). 8. No7 has not been extended to the rear, its flank boundaries are marked by ordinary garden fencing, and there is no mature greenery near the dwelling. This results in a fairly open feel. The value of this to occupiers of No7 is indicated by glazed rear doors leading out onto a patio area, connecting house and garden. 9. The rear garden at No7 is of modest depth and width. In this context, the replacement as part of the proposed development of the existing fence with a solid wall at least a metre taller, and reaching some 5 metres along the boundary, would significantly erode the current sense of openness experienced from the garden, patio, and internal ground floor. The proposed development would dominate the outlook therefrom, creating an invasive, harmful feeling of enclosure in locations where the current sense of openness is an important feature. 10. Furthermore, the proposed development would fall within a line directly south from the glazed doors at No7. As such, it would reduce levels of direct sunlight received by those doors during the middle of the day. This would exacerbate the harmful effects on outlook described above. 11. No3 has a glazed conservatory to the rear extending some 3 metres from the main rear elevation. The proposed extension would result in some reduction in evening sunlight reaching the conservatory. However, it would continue to receive morning sunlight from the east and sunlight from the south for much of the day. Furthermore, its glazed roof would continue to permit natural light to enter, including during the latter part of the day. 12. Whilst the proposed development would represent a noticeable change in outlook from No3, its impact would be moderated by the limited extent to which it would project beyond the rear of the conservatory. Taking these factors together, I find that the effect on amenity at No3 would not be unacceptably harmful. 13. Cuckmere Crescent and Rother Crescent are effectively laid out in back-to-back fashion, such that dwellings on these two streets are separated by the depth of two rear gardens. Given this, the proposed development would not harm living conditions for occupiers of premises on Cuckmere Crescent. 14. Overall, however, the proposed development would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of an adjoining premises at No7 in terms of outlook and light. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. A Knight INSPECTOR